The Golden Rule assumes that people, by nature, don't like dishonesty, being robbed, or having their life imperiled, which is a pretty safe assumption. It is based on the ideas of empathy and of self-interest, and it encourages people to examine the consequences and implications of their actions. You can extend this simple idea to cover a wide range of situations.
Ethical normative systems can be based on simple principles, such as the Golden Rule. However, life can be more complex and situations not as straightforward as the three examples above. Normative systems provide more depth and a wider range of principles than a single simple statement.
As in most things philosophical, there is more than one answer to the question: What should I do?
Virtue Ethics
Virtues are desirable qualities that a person should possess such as honesty, courage, kindness, and loyalty. Ethical systems based on virtue emphasize the moral character of the individual arguing that a person who possesses virtues will act virtuously, that is, goodly. People need to work at developing habits of good behaviour, meaning training their moral sense much as an athlete would train for a sport. Education and 'practical wisdom' are key in virtue ethics.
1. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics in the western tradition traces its roots to Aristotle. His ideas about virtue were based in the notion that all things have a proper function; the proper function of humans is their faculty of reason. If you perform your proper function well, you will find satisfaction and happiness, called eudaemonia. There is no notion of an 'afterlife' in which you are rewarded for your good deeds; the reward comes from the satisfaction you will get from fulfilling the purpose for which you were designed.
Doing the right thing would be acting in accordance with good habits, virtues, which you have acquired by applying your sense of reason to practical moral situations. There are no 'guidelines' for moral action that tell you what to do for a particular situation: a virtuous person will automatically choose the right action. It is almost the same as having a trained 'moral reflex'.
But how do you acquire these habitual virtues? In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle set out a system known as the Golden Mean. He analyzed 11 human vices, arranging them in pairs, such as cowardice and foolhardiness, and stinginess and extravagance. The vices consist of extremes consisting of too much or too little of the desirable action. For example, when a charitable group asks for your help, it is not good to be stingy and refuse to help them; on the other hand, it is not good to give away all that you have. What you should do is act according to the situation, that is, do what is appropriate for the situation. The Golden Mean is a sort of 'steer between the ditches' approach to morality, meaning the vices lie on either side of your path and you must find the best course. The 'middle path' between cowardice and foolhardiness is courage; between stinginess and extravagance, generosity.
But how much generosity is appropriate? The virtuous person will know what to do based on study, reason, and the practical wisdom that comes from experience. There is no guidebook or internet site which you can consult to tell you what to do in every situation (duty theory). There is no calculation of pros and cons (consequentialism). Virtuous people will know what is best because they are virtuous.
Incidentally, according to Aristotle, women cannot be virtuous because they lack the ability to reason. (The Ancient Greeks tended towards misogyny.) Modern virtue ethicists have built on Aristotle's ideas, and most would argue that women are capable of higher thinking functions.
2. Thomistic Ethics
St. Thomas Aquinas was an influential, though controversial, Christian scholar of the 13th century. His great work was the Summa Theologica, addressed many of the great questions about Christianity, such as the existence of God and the nature of truth.
Aquinas based his ethical system on Aristotle's concepts of human rationality, purpose, and eudaemonia. However, some of Aristotle's ideas contradicted Christian beliefs. Aquinas integrated Christian ideas into an Aristotelian scheme. Aquinas argued that the ultimate purpose of humans is to return to God: all good actions tend towards this goal. Humans use their faculties of reason to determine what are proper behaviours, using an innate sense of goodness provided them by the Supreme Being. To come closer to God, people should cultivate virtuous behaviours, particularly the Four Cardinal Virtues: prudence, temperance, justice, and courage. These are not the only virtues one should cultivate, but they are the most critical, for other virtues rely on them. If one develops virtuous habits, one will take the right action and be a good person, fulfilling the purpose for which one was designed-to get back to God. Of course, if one doesn't act in accordance with these virtues... well, bad things will happen.
3. Buddhism
The eight-spoked Dharmachakra.
The eight spokes represent
the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.
This is an example of a non-Western virtue ethics system. This philosophical tradition developed in India in the 6th century BCE. One of the basic tenets of Buddhism is 'The Four Noble Truths' based on the idea that life is a cycle of suffering. How does one break the cycle? Buddhists follow theNoble Eightfold Path, a statement of virtues related to proper conduct. As with Aristotle's ethics, education and wisdom are required to know the right action to take. However, the Noble Eightfold Path is somewhat more explicit in telling you what to do and what not to do. The end result of following the Noble Eightfold Path is Nirvana; the state of release from the suffering of this world.
4. Confucianism
Confucianism developed in China about the same time as Buddhism in India several centuries before Aristotle. Confucianism has no afterlife or other-worldly dimension. Confucianism is a humanistic philosophy, and its ethical system revolves about relationships between people in society.
The goal of Confucian ethics is to promote harmony in society. Everyone has a place and a proper way of behaving towards others, based on the relationships between individuals: parent to child, ruler to subject, husband to wife. Each of these individuals has a role, with obligations towards the others. If all people perform their roles properly, then social harmony will result, which is good. If, on the other hand, people decide to act outside their proper roles, social chaos will result, which is not good. The individual is less important than the community, and acting selfishly, acting to increase your own happiness without considering the wider social ramifications, will lead to bad results for the community. The highest good is social harmony, and a virtuous person will always act to promote it: recall that Confucianism uses the Golden Rule as a basis of its morality.
How does one know how to behave properly? Study of ancient wisdom based on the teachings of sages will allow one to cultivate virtues to guide proper behaviour. This will take time. A good person will need to acquire three important virtues:
- Jen: humanity, kindness, goodness
- Li: propriety, respect for others, acknowledging proper social relations
- Yi: right action, duty, to do what is fitting
A person who cultivates their moral senses properly will be able to determine the right action to take. Confucianism is often seen as advocating a rigid social system intolerant of change or unconventional thinking, but Confucianism allows for someone who is virtuous to challenge the existing social order, particularly in the realm of politics, as moral thinking may be superior to what is currently in place. However, the key good of Confucianism is social harmony, and all actions have to be seen in this context.
Duty Ethics
The requirement that one should follow a specified set of rules is known as duty ethics, or deontology. Deontological systems are based on a set of principles that one applies to each situation. The nature of right and wrong comes from outside the individual. This contrasts with virtue ethics, which is based on a sense of what is right and wrong. In addition, duty is something one is obliged to do: it is your "should do". Not doing your duty means committing wrong acts. As well, the outcome of the action is irrelevant, and duty ethics focuses on the spirit in which the action is done-right intention. This is where duty ethics differs from consequentialism.
1. Theistic Normative Ethics
Theistic Normative Ethics developed from the Divine Command theories of meta-ethics, where the source of right and wrong is the Divine. They are based on the notion of an objective source of right and wrong, in this case, a Supreme Being, who indicates what humans should and should not do. All actions are judged in accordance of how closely they match God's will.
These systems provide simple criteria for determining right and wrong, such as in the Ten Commandments, which were discussed in activity 2. The same difficulties arise:
- there may be variant interpretations of what the Divine Creator wishes humans to do, and
- the guidelines are of little interest to non-believers.
2. Kantian Ethics
Immanuel Kant's system of ethics is usually known as the Categorical Imperative. It is based on the notion that there are rules of right and wrong that can be found, and that right behaviour requires that a person always follow these rules. The rules set out situations, courses of action, and reasons for these courses of action. For example:
"When faced with the situation of telling the truth or telling a lite, always tell the truth because it will lead to greater trust and honesty in the world, which is a desirable outcome.
How does one arrive at the rules? Through reason, one can develop a set of rules, maxims, to guide behaviour. These maxims need to take into account possible situations, courses of action available, and the outcome that is desirable. Based on reason, these maxims will be universal to all persons who think about problems hard enough, and, in fact, will be self-evident. As the maxims are arrived at through reason, they cannot be wrong and are not open to interpretation. They are categorical. A rational basis also makes them a duty that you are bound to carry out imperative. Thus, we arrive at the categorical imperative, a set of rules that are binding on everyone, always.
This is usually summarized in the statement:
"Act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law."
This means that if you feel it is wrong to lie, then you believe it is wrong for everyone to lie, no exceptions. You know this because you arrived at your maxim through vigorous reasoning, so it can't be wrong. If you allowed exceptions to your rule, such as "It is okay to lie when no one will be hurt by my lies", you open the possibility that anyone could lie whenever they judged the lie to be harmless. The potential result of this could lead to a lot of lying. Moral chaos and disorder would result if each person decided for themselves when lying was okay and when it was not okay. As well, if you decided it was okay for you to lie, then it would be okay for anyone else to lie. Again, moral chaos would result.
What is important in determining the rightness or wrongness of actions is their intention, the spirit in which they are done. A good act is one that is done for the right reasons-duty. There should be no consideration of a 'good outcome', and one's personal benefit or harm (or that of others) is irrelevant: regardless of what will happen, you must do what you must do.
The purpose of following these categorical imperatives is to promote the highest good for humanity, which will lead to great happiness for all. This is associated with Kant's ideas about the afterlife and the Divine, which he considered necessary as metaphysical guarantors of reality. The categorical imperative can also be expressed in this way, which takes into account the notion of the Highest Good:
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always as an end and never as a means."
This sounds similar to the Golden Rule. It requires you to think about others, and not just your own interest. It requires that you take an objective view of yourself and arrive at decisions about morality impartially.
No comments:
Post a Comment